Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Everyone has heard of charities whose practices may be or
are questionable. When the situation is serious enough it makes the news.

In response to public concerns several institutions exist
that "rate" charities. The information published by these
organizations is accessed by individual donors, foundations, employees, volunteers,
independent contractors, and even private and government watchdog groups.

As a freelance grant writer and consultant, I can attest
that if you aren't rated by one of these organizations, or you have received a
poor rating or some sort of alert it will impact your fundraising capabilities.

How they work.

The information available to the public on rating sites can
range from simple proof of nonprofit status to an actual assessment of the
legitimacy of the organization and its practices.

Spoiler Alert! Almost
without fail, these private, usually nonprofit organizations have a minimum revenue
qualifier that determines which charities they will rate. For most it is in the one million dollars and
up range, but at the very least it requires the filing of a 990, not just the postcard.

For that reason, you are not likely to find your local food
pantry or animal rescue on some of these websites. Some, like GuideStar, will list the basics
even for smaller charities, which at least allows you to be sure they are
registered.

You can also search the IRS website for verification of
approved status, the general web for anecdotal reviews or consult your local
Better Business Bureau.

I don't recommend social media sites like Facebook as a single
source for rating a charity, but they may flesh out the dry facts available
elsewhere.

But who rates the raters? Are these just online collectors
of raves and rants by fake reviewers, disgruntled employees, clients or donors?

For the answer to that you have to ask yourself a few
questions. Questions such as: how did they come to be in existence, how
reliable is their information, and what criteria do they use to assign ratings?

One well known organization is Charity Navigator or CN so
let's see what they have to say about their process.

Charity Navigator has been in business as a nonprofit since
2001 according to their website, arising out of a perceived need to shed light
on the inner workings of charities.

Originally conceived by Pat and Marion
Dugan, whose story
is available on the website, CN is a bellwether rating organization.

It is definitely one of the top three starting points on my
list of charity verification sources.

On September 1, Charity Navigator instituted a new rating
scale.

The website goes into great detail about their methodology.
You can view it here.

I mentioned that CN is one of several sources I use before
deciding whether to agree to offer my services, as well as my own donations to
a nonprofit.

One thing has always caused me to view some of the
information available throughout the
industry with a squinty eye, and the CN website details it perfectly.

That is the way media reporting is included in a list of rating
criteria alongside nonprofit experts, seemingly assigning those reports the
same level of credibility as those done by experts.

For instance, one of the ways to get a poor rating is to
have an employee or official who
embezzles from your charity, a story often first reported by a news
agency.

While some might see that as blaming the victim, there is
sound reasoning behind it.

It goes to the ability of the charity to monitor its use of
funds by having adequate financial security safeguards in place and actually
using those safeguards to prevent theft. It addresses the character of the organization
itself.

But it also goes to the accuracy of the information.

CN freely admits that it does not, and indeed has no ability
to, assess the accuracy of the media information it uses.

For me that's a cautionary flag.

Yes, where there is smoke there is usually fire, and news
reports are definitely a smoke signal.

Conversely, one has only to look at the media's conduct
during this election season to have serious concerns about the ethics, veracity
and credibility of the media.

For that reason, if the allegation of financial
mismanagement or criminal activity is one of the major knocks against the
organization being rated, I tend to hold my opinion in abeyance until I can
ascertain if it was an isolated incident in an otherwise sterling record.

I would also want to know whether anyone followed up with
actual arrests and/or prosecution of the persons involved and whether there is
any past history or indication of financial malfeasance or incompetence.

Charities, even more than Caesars wife, have to be above
reproach and the larger and more visible they are the less leeway they have.

Still, accusations usually make the front page, while any
retractions or exonerations are usually
buried on page 52 under last week's stock market report.

I am not saying that you or CN should disregard this type of
information. I don't, and neither should you.

I am saying that media reports should be vetted as
thoroughly as the charity before it they are used as a criteria for either
approval or condemnation.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Blogs are very popular with both nonprofits and businesses.
In fact, they are often hyped as the quintessential engagement strategy.

Far be it from me to debunk that.

What the heck, this is a blog. If I didn't believe that it
had value, why would I do it?

Aside from that, I have many clients whom I assist with their
blogs.

So why blog? There
are a number of reasons:

·To keep current customers or partners engaged
with your brand.

·To impart knowledge

·To increase or maintain sales or donations.

·To receive feedback

·To introduce your business or charityto new markets or donors

·To increase search engine rankings

·To research market trends

Blogs should have a clear focus and provide your target
audience with some value for the time they invest in reading and following you.

Sometimes it is just engagement. That's a really good goal
if you are in the business of creating social change or affecting public opinion.
It gives like-minded people a place to belong, and the benefit of numbers.

Most of the time, it will be to enhance your business,
either in terms of direct sales of a product or service, or in terms of attracting
new clients and maintaining relationships with existing and former ones.

Blogs have the potential to be far more engaging that a
short tweet, or a few words on Facebook.

Ideally they should foster a two-way communication, either one-on-one
or even by just acquiring followers.

The reader who passes your blog along to a friend or another
social media channel is doing some of your outreach for you.

A lot of people start blogs, but can't or don't maintain
them.

Sometimes it’s a time crunch. Sometimes the blog doesn't seem to engage
readers. Other times the cost in either time or actual cash seems unnecessary.

Believe me, I understand. In addition to this blog and
another one of my own, this is part of what
I do for a living.

Good posts take time. Just curating (NOT plagiarizing!) other content and
repurposing it for your own use is time-consuming, and good original writing is
even more time-consuming.

If your blog doesn't seem to be producing the results you
expected, there's usually a reason.

In my own experience working for clients with widely differing
business profiles, the most common problem is failure to properly identify either the
target audience or the blog's goal or both.

The blog needs to bring you or your client the sales or
donations or volunteers or whatever is needed.

For instance let's just say that I have a client who is a home remodeler.

That client does not want to teach prospective customers how
to do the work. Yet I see many remodeler blogs that go into great detail about
how to properly prepare a surface for paint.

Unless you are selling paint, that's the wrong emphasis.

Sure, some readers will say "Wow that's too much work.
Maybe I'll call this business and hire them."

Most are going to say "Great. Now I can tell Cousin Charlie
exactly what to do when he comes over to help me."

The focus should be on why the remodeler can provide a
better outcome than Cousin Charlie.

One question I always ask my clients is "Who and what is the focus of this blog? What do you want it
to accomplish?"

You'd be amazed at how few people can actually provide an answer
that benefits them.

Some have even said that they don't know, they just want to
have a blog.

I guess I could say "Great. All the money spends the
same. What do I care if the blog does you any good?"

I could, but I won't. I still have to look at me in the mirror every
morning.

The truth is, there are times when you shouldn't have a
blog.

If you don't have the time and/or the temperament to devote
yourself to the blog, or to interact with me so I can produce quality posts for
you, then a blog may not be for you.

There is a lot more to using a blog effectively than just
the copy. Things like interacting with commenters respectfully, or converting readers
to buyers are terribly important, but it can all start with the blog.

The blog is the gateway.
Don't put up a big "Private Property" sign on your gate.

If you aren't sure whether blogging is for you, or you have
a blog you'd like to have reviewed, drop me a line at rightwords@ida.net. I'd love to help.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

If you are or intend to be a 501(c)(4) organization, have
not previously sought or gotten an IRS Letter of Determination, and have never
filed an information return in the 990 series, this form is a new requirement
for you and for what the IRS calls local associations of employees.

No other 501 C-section entity needs to be concerned with
this new filing requirement.

However, failure to comply now can cost a qualifying organization
and its key officers penalties totaling $5,000, assessed at $20 per day.

The IRS
broadly defines C4's as social welfare organizations or associations
operating in the interests of the common public good, without intending to or
accruing profit to the members, as stated here:

Reg. 1.
501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that:

[A]n organization is
operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily
engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the
community.

The IRS offers further examples here,
but note the use of the word "community." This differs from a C3
entity in that it does not support one identifiable group, i.e. low-income
children or unwed mothers, while excluding others.

However, "community" does not have to mean a whole
city or town. For instance a local homeowners association's "community"
might be just the entire group of homeowners it represents.

Thus, a local improvement district might be a
501(c)(4) if it seeks to improve city parks or establish a lending library. A
rural homeowners association that seeks
to buy snow removal equipment to be made available to the entire neighborhood
could also qualify.

The main attraction for people seeking to form a C4 is that
these organizations may engage in some forms of general lobbying or political
discourse, where a 501(c)(3) cannot.

Note that the new Form
8976 is NOT equivalent to a Letter of Determination. It is, as it states,
simply a notice of intent. There is a
$50 filing fee attached to it.

The IRS apparently believes that there are a lot of
organizations operating as C4 entities that have never registered as such but
are still engaging in prohibited political activities.

The problem with that is all of the money donated to or
collected by unregistered or disqualified entities is taxable as ordinary
business income. There may also be
criminal penalties if the money was collected and/or spent under false
pretenses.

If you have any other questions or are trying to determine
what type of charitable identity your new organization should apply for, contact me and we can discuss it.

Another that is based on volunteer staffed community
outreach regarding education might need no more than a phone and a website.

Recently I had a nonprofit that wanted a press release
written to tell the community that they were shutting down. Their main source
of income was fees for services, but they simply didn't have enough clients to
cover their operating costs.

One fact I learned
was that they had kept overhead to 7.5% of donations. There was no set budget
for non-program costs.

One of the casualties of that approach was that they did not
advertise beyond having a website.

I did the press release and two weeks later, I got another
call. Could I do a press release
retracting the closing?

When the first press release ran, they got over 70 calls
wanting their services.

Up to that point, it seems hardly anyone knew they existed.

I'm happy to report that they remained in business, and have
since created a budget for marketing.

Don't get hung up on meeting some artificial figure that
doesn't work for your business or charity.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

The number one complaint Cloudlancer Writing Services receives
from new and smaller nonprofits is that they are largely left out of the grant
funding loop.

Either the grantmakers want several years in business, a
revenue average of from $100K to $1 million, they aren't taking applications,
or all of the above.

News flash…you don't need their grants to stay afloat and
even grow.

The second largest source of funding for all nonprofits
(after fees paid for services) is funding by individuals.

You say you have a donation button but no one clicks on it?

To increase donations you need to think like a marketer.

Good marketing doesn't initially focus on the product. It focuses on
the needs of the audience for the product or service, and maintains a
consistent message across all platforms.

In the case of nonprofits, when you need donations, ask
yourself what your typical donor wants to see or hear.

To understand that connection, think about the sudden uptick
in ads for those copper/ceramic coated cooking pans.

The infomercials don't start out telling you why their
skillet or pan is the greatest.

Instead the ad spends well over half the time reminding you
why you hate your Teflon™ coated cooking utensils.

The ad overtly capitalizes on your desire for a better
cooking experience, while covertly appealing to your interest in new and
healthier eating trends.

Learn the difference
between grant proposals and donor marketing

Unlike grant applications, which tend to be
program-specific, your core mission can work as your product when marketing to
individual donors.

Individual donors are far easier to sway to your cause than
the grant making institutions, there are a lot more of them and they are a lot
easier to reach.

To market to them, think about why they donate. (Hint: It's not because your organization can't pay
the utilities this month.)

What do they get out of donating?

For some it might be personal because they are, or know
someone who is, affected by the problem your programs seek to solve.

For others it might be a general sense of responsibility to
society or perhaps it just makes them feel good to help.

This can take a
little detective work. In the business world,
it's called market research, in the nonprofit world it's donor outreach
research.

Because everyone's circumstances change, it's something you have to stay on top of to
be successful over the long haul.

It's a bit more complicated than having me or anyone else
write a boilerplate program narrative, but customization and attention to
detail will pay off.

There are a number of approaches that will work under
different circumstances. It can be a blog, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, snail
mail, a really well-designed website, or a combination of all of those.

Whatever you use, be sure that your message, your brand if
you will, is consistent. That might be a common tagline, the name of your
organization, or a visual, but it needs to become something uniquely identified
with you.

Speaking of your audience, it pays to know who they are
demographically. That allows you to tailor your appeals to their income comfort
level.

I don't agree. One urban agriculture-centered nonprofit
found that by starting with a very low minimum donation of five dollars, they
were able to grow their donor base and increase their online donation traffic by 350% the first year. The next year they
dropped the $5 category, and 89% of their donors just switched to $10 without a
second thought. Another seven percent actually moved up to the $15 level.

The secret for that campaign was the money was tied to what
it would buy; seed packets, a hand
trowel, a bag of fertilizer and so on. This image-heavy strategy didn't need
1000 words to explain where the money would go…just a picture and maybe five or
ten words.

The idea there is that you want to build up a habit of
supporting your nonprofit first and work to increase the average donation
amount as you go along.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Does your nonprofit need help? More important, do you know
what kind of help you need?

Hint - It might not be a grant.

A quick confession. I
backed into being a consultant/startup adviser from being primarily a grant
writer that specialized in newer nonprofits.

Why?

Because too many of my clients were so unprepared to ask
anyone for money.

I found myself spending a lot more of my time getting
clients to the point that they could meet the grantor's requirements than
actually writing the proposal.

These were clients that had been in business for a while
(the minimum time in business for me to consider a grant writing client is two
years) but just weren't moving forward.

Some of them had no coherent program strategy. Some had no
overarching fundraising strategy.

Some didn't even have budgets, organizational
or program. Without a budget, you can't
define a fundraising goal. And those are just three of a long list of problems
that had to be solved or managed before I could even look for grantors that
matched up with my clients.

I even wrote a nice little free handout called "Why you
can't survive on grants." Lots of
people requested it, few agreed with it.

I remember one person who got the handout and then wrote me
a scathing email that read in part,
"Listen, nonprofits CAN'T survive without grants. Why do you think
they started anyway? It was to get
people with money to stop being so selfish and put their money to work for
good."

With all due respect, if that's your reason for starting a
nonprofit, I can't help you.

Another problem is what I call the "someone else has to
do the dirty work" philosophy.

Some clients don't want the tools to succeed. They want to
order a ready-made nonprofit and have it shipped to their door.

For instance there was the client that had no budgets of any
kind because they had no idea what anything cost to produce. When a grant asked
for the cost per meal of their supplemental feeding program, they told me to
"figure it out and let us know."

Uh, that's not how it works. Those are figures you should
already have on hand for any grant writer. I offered to show them how to arrive
at the figures and they terminated the grant writing contract because I
"refused to compile requested information."

I think they had me confused with their chief operating
officer.

Incidentally, neither of these two are still in business.

Only you know what areas aren't working for you. Is it
volunteer and/or employee retention? Funding insufficient to accomplish your
mission? Perhaps the board and the CEO/ED aren't on the same page? Has
increased need outstripped your level of development? Applying for lots of
grants but seldom or never landing any?

Whatever it is, it's usually not because you are having
trouble getting or need a grant. That's ordinarily a symptom, not a cause.

Think of it like a broken down car. You know the car isn't
running, but someone has to lift the hood and replace the right part to fix it.

The nice thing is, most of the time the real problems can be
remedied. In terms of your time, commitment and yes, money, the solutions
aren't free, but they do exist.

Monday, June 27, 2016

After waiting weeks or maybe even months, you either get a Dear
John letter saying thanks for applying, or you go to the grantor's website and
you are definitely not on their list of funded proposals.

Even worse, you may not get any feedback at all

Your first (printable) reaction is "what did I (we) do
wrong?"

Maybe nothing. Statistics show that there are often as many
as 100 applications for each round of funding awarded, and that brings the laws
of supply and demand into play.

In that case, your carefully crafted proposal just got lost
in the crowd.

That's not to say that your proposal is always perfect. I get a few requests to review and/or
"punch up" proposals every month and some of them …well, let's just
say some of them need a lot of help. Perhaps they don't have any tangible
results to report, or there are grammatical or logic errors, or their program
didn't really fit the grantor's mission very well.

But some are stellar. No, really, there is absolutely
nothing to fix.

That's the most frustrating part of proposal
submissions. Perfect isn't always good
enough.

In that case, it really isn't you, it's them. Here is a short list that explains how that
happens.

1. The grantee was pre-selected.
They already knew who was going to win before you ever wrote the first
line. That happens when the grantor's
bylaws or guidelines require a minimum number of applicants.

2. They ran out of
money. I actually know of a foundation
that had so many good proposals that they assigned each a number and picked the
winners out of a hat.

3. They were looking for an intangible quality that they
didn't include in the guidelines. I call that the "I'll know the perfect
house when I see it" effect.

4. Too many
applications, and they just didn't have the time or inclination to evaluate
every proposal thoroughly.

5. Fear of the unknown. Grantors may have had a long-standing
relationship with just a few nonprofits and the award committee might be afraid
to try something new.

In some cases, you may get a letter that invites you to try
again. I always suggest that you update the necessary areas (results, other
supporters, etc.) and give it another chance. The next time you may be
top-of-mind because of your previous submissions.

If the grantor is located close to you, do a little more
in-depth research. Check out the principals to see what sort of organizations they belong to or whether they may circulate
in the same social circles that you frequent.

In fact, I usually recommend that you try at least three
times. Things and people change and it would be a shame to fail to even try.

Also, it never hurts to check out the competition, assuming
you know who got the grant. Sometimes there are subtle (and they can be very
subtle) clues you can use to tweak your proposal next time.

In one case, I
noticed that all the grantees selected were within just a few miles of the
grantor's headquarters. My client was over 50 miles away, although still within
the geographical zone of the guidelines. The next time they applied they
addressed the distance factor in a positive manner and were awarded a piece of
the pie.

Although it seldom bears fruit, it can't hurt to ask why
you were not successful. Sometimes you
will get an answer. Bear in mind, some grantors will say right in the
guidelines that they don't give feedback.
In that case, save your breath and time.

You should always write the best grant application possible,
but if it doesn't work out, don't get so discouraged that you quit trying.

If you would like a review of or assistance with a proposal,
you can reach me here.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Some of may have noticed this blog has been on hiatus for
the past six months. That's right, I took down a reasonably successful blog and
just stopped, cold turkey.

Part of that was due to a long-term contract, but to be
truthful part of it was due to a need to re-assess why I write it.

I've always thought that if your advice is worth anything,
you should be able to take it yourself.

I started this blog to provide insight for you into the
world of start-ups, which I define as any time between the day you think of
starting a nonprofit or small business and when it first becomes
self-sustaining.

The less altruistic motive was to generate serious clients
that truly wanted to provide a service or product and make or attract money
while doing it.

The blog did generate client interest, but not from the type
of serious entrepreneurs and social-preneuers I wanted to help.

Instead, I was seeing a lot of people looking for a get-rich-quick
scheme. Maybe that's a result of the hustler world we live in, but part of it
was me.

You see, I honestly believed that there were a lot of people
out there who wanted to experience the satisfaction of having built something
with their own two hands, nurturing it and watching it grow.

I would provide the knowledge via consulting services and
the nuts-and-bolts tools like grant writing, planning documents, and web and
print content, and they would use them to move forward.

All right, all right, so that was naïve. In other words, I misidentified the target market.

I just had no idea how naïve until I started the
afore-mentioned contract. Without giving away any secrets, it was designed to
monitor large societal shifts in attitudes.

Suffice it to say, this blog was always for people that
really want to do the work to succeed. But now it will ask you to demonstrate
that commitment.

Here's where this blog is going from here.

Just how serious are you about succeeding? We're about to find out.

The main content will only be available to readers that ask
for it. It will offer new content on a
semi-weekly schedule on a subscription
basis. The topic will be teased before publishing, so you'll know what to expect.

I still think there are people out there that fit my target
audience, but I could be wrong. If, after 3 months, i.e. by September 30 , 2016, it isn't proving to be viable, the blog goes
away forever.